Live data from Hacker News

Why are corporations cutting managers?

arnoldkling.substack.com

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#11

This reads as if the required amount of management for different initiatives is constant, but it isn't. One thing that happens is that when money is plentiful, there is a push to find new ways to generate returns. When money is tight, new bets look bad, and companies may cut new bets and work on optimizing their existing cash-cows. Strictly, that says nothing about the number of managers needed, but I do think it's l…

This is insightful and mirrors my understanding of corporations. New bets are too risky but existing bets need to be maintained for the sake of customers.

Thus, new managers are not necessary as new teams are not necessary. Folding teams together also starts making sense. Fewer layers also starts making sense.

Ultimately, management is overhead and administrative. Less important than individuals who are actually building, maintaining, advertising, and selling.

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#14

Corporations cut managers because they're expensive. Not having enough managers is also expensive though.

Actually my manager was "demoted" back to a programmer, which I think is a good thing. He was forced onto management a few years ago, but that was a waste of talent in my opinion. I also think a lot of stress he suffered as a manager is gone.

But yes, a lot of people were let go at the same time (8 months ago).

And the article, no useful information from what I can see.

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#15

This reads as if the required amount of management for different initiatives is constant, but it isn't. One thing that happens is that when money is plentiful, there is a push to find new ways to generate returns. When money is tight, new bets look bad, and companies may cut new bets and work on optimizing their existing cash-cows. Strictly, that says nothing about the number of managers needed, but I do think it's l…

[dead]

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#16

This reads as if the required amount of management for different initiatives is constant, but it isn't. One thing that happens is that when money is plentiful, there is a push to find new ways to generate returns. When money is tight, new bets look bad, and companies may cut new bets and work on optimizing their existing cash-cows. Strictly, that says nothing about the number of managers needed, but I do think it's l…

> When money is tight, new bets look bad

It's not optical, it's just bad. The risk adjusted returns for bets need to cross the interest rate threshold and when rates are high, the number of bets you can take must drop.

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#17
post #2

This is all over news but is this actually true. Meta is always citied as example because Mark said and did bunch of things to appease the markets. There are no reduction in numbers at meta now. Middle managers have made a comeback at meta big time. CEOs love middle managers despite what they say to investors. Even the numbers cited in the article are not convincing > middle-manager head counts by about 6% since the…

Middle management gets a bad rap but that political battleground makes or break companies.

Re: Why are corporations cutting managers?

#19
post #6
post #5

Not terribly insightful. The question in the headline is not answered.

Was it written by an AI?

Arnold Kling is a fairly well known academic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Kling

I read this blog post as "thinking out loud on the internet". It's something I see done quite a bit in the econ blogosphere. Sometimes a post like this will prompt responses from other econ bloggers (Greg Mankiw, Tyler Cowen, etc.). Sometimes not. It's not meant to be an essay.

Post reply on HN